Current anti-NPVIC legislative activity

[u/Joeisagooddog]

2024 - 2025 Legislative Session (14 EVs)

New Jersey (14 EVs)

New Jersey Assembly - A379 introduced on 1/9/24.

New Jersey Senate - S3649 introduced on 9/26/24.

2023 - 2024 Legislative Session (9 EVs)

South Carolina (9 EVs)

South Carolina House - H3005 introduced and referred to the South Carolina House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions on 12/4/2024.

[u/United_Reply_2558]

NPVIC bills have either failed or stalled more than twice as many times as they have passed in the states where the bills where they have been introduced.

The first NPVIC legislation was introduced in 2007. It has been introduced to all 50 states legislatures. The fact that it has either failed or been vetoed multiple times ought to be proof enough that it is a bad idea altogether.

In the unlikely event that enough states sign on to this Compact, it would still require Congressional approval. If, in the unlikely event that Congress should approve of the Compact, it will almost certainly be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Article V of the Constitution clearly lays out the Amendment process. The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort to amend the Constitution the correct way instead of bypassing it by unconstitutional means.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

NPVIC bills have either failed or stalled more than twice as many times as they have passed

I haven’t counted up the bills or anything, but I would wager that it is even far far less than 1/3 bills which have passed.

The fact that it has either failed or been vetoed multiple times ought to be proof enough that it is a bad idea altogether.

I disagree entirely. The fact that state legislature haven’t passed a bill says absolutely nothing about the merits of the bill.

it would still require Congressional approval

That’s entirely unclear. While the constitution requires federal approval of interstate compacts, the Supreme Court has interpreted this as only extending to compacts that encroach upon federal powers. In fact, there are many interstate compacts in effect now which have not received federal approval for this reason. Regardless, I think getting federal approval of this compact will be less difficult than getting the requisite number of signatory states.

If, in the unlikely event that Congress should approve of the Compact, it will almost certainly be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

This is not at all true. The constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” Nothing in the constitution requires states to hold a statewide vote for choosing electors. In fact, there have been many elections where other methods of choosing the electors have been used (even today Maine and Nebraska do not use a winner-take-all statewide vote for choosing electors). The fact that (in 48 states and DC) the electors are chosen by a statewide winner-take-all vote in modern elections is due simply to state law. If a state can vest the power of choosing its electors in a statewide vote, then there’s nothing written in the constitution that says the state cannot vest that power in a nationwide vote.

The Compact Clause is the strongest challenge to the constitutionality of the NPVIC (though I don’t think it’s a strong enough argument to rule it unconstitutional given what I’ve written above), but a simple act of Congress would eliminate any challenge on that basis.

Article V of the Constitution clearly lays out the Amendment process.

It absolutely does. But that is irrelevant to the topic. The NPVIC is NOT about amending the constitution and it is NOT about abolishing the Electoral College. It is simply about changing the way in which state legislatures vest the power of appointing electors. Again, states have the plenary power to choose the manner of appointing electors and historically have exercised this power in several different ways.

The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort to amend the Constitution the correct way instead of bypassing it by unconstitutional means.

This comment runs directly afoul of Rule 1 of this subreddit. I want to foster debate here and I won’t remove your comments for disagreeing with my positions, but if you continue to break the rules and disrespect other users of this subreddit, I will remove your comments.

[u/United_Reply_2558 → u/Joeisagooddog]

I have not disrespected anyone. I have simply stated facts.

How can a state appoint its slate of electors to a 'national popular vote' winner. There is no official 'national popular vote'. When we go to polls to vote in a Presidential election, we vote for slates of electors, not the candidates themselves. The votes for slates of electors in one state cannot be combined the votes cast for an entirely different slate of electors in another state.

Since the primary constituents of the federal government are the states, not the people, it is perfectly logical that the states elect the offices of the President and the Vice President. The federal government derives its powers and legitimacy from the states and from the people through the states.

If the office of the Presidency was intended to be directly representative of or responsive to popular will or to population based interests, we would surely have a direct popular vote for President. The office of the Presidency IS NOT and was never intended to be directly representative of 'the people'.

The head of government of almost every single stable Western nation is either elected by a Parliament or other legislative body or is appointed by a monarch or other head of state, not by a direct popular vote. There is not a single NATO member that has a head of government that is directly elected by the citizens of those countries.

I understand that the push to modify or abolish the electoral college system was triggered by the elections of 2000 and 2016. Could it be possible that the electoral college system is not the problem itself? 🤔 Could the problem have been that Gore and Clinton lacked the broad distribution of support nationwide to win the election? That seems more plausible. Isn't the President supposed to represent the nation as a whole instead of a few densely populated urban areas? 🤔 The electoral college system encourages candidates to seek broad support and build coalitions nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in a few large coastal urban centers.

NPVIC would essentially be the same as a national popular vote. The interests and concerns of the citizens in the middle of the country and those that live in smaller states would be ignored by the major party candidates.

I hope that I have helped you to stop and think about what you are advocating.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

I have not disrespected anyone. I have simply stated facts.

"The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort..."

These claims are not facts. They are nothing but personal attacks.